The media are complicit by reporting the bombings in India and Thailand according to the American/Israeli script, rather than stating the fact that the Mossad is an organization known to have mastered false flag "black ops," and then launching an investigation into the likelihood that the recent attacks attributed to Iran are the work of the CIA and/or the Mossad.

The psychological warfare includes constantly maintaining the American people in a pressure cooker of extreme anxiety over the likelihood of an imminent terror attack by supposed Iranian agents operating in the U.S.

This dose of ludicrous fear-mongering comes in the form of a nearly half-page editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled, “The Iranian Threat to New York City.” Like 9 years ago with Iraq, the media drums of war are again beating, this time for destroying the Iranian nation based on false flag bombs planted by the Mossad and CIA and blamed on Iran.

The author, Mitchell D. Silber, the New York City Police Department’s chief of intelligence, writes the following gibberish: “As the West’s conflict with Iran over its nuclear program heats up, New York City — with its large Jewish population — becomes an increasingly attractive target.” This rhetoric is almost identical to Zionist propaganda in the New York Times ten years ago asserting a “mushroom cloud” over the U.S. if we didn’t stop Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Silber does not tell his frightened Wall Street Journal readers that Iran’s own Judaic community, which is entirely at the mercy of the government, lives in comfort and safety. Silber is giving advance cues to the American people so that if Mossad plants a bomb in a Judaic neighborhood in New York, the public will immediately surmise, “Iran’s behind it!” This is lynch mob thinking which the Wall Street Journal ought to denounce rather than enhance.

Record of Terror by U.S. and Israelis Dwarf Alleged Acts by Iran

Harvard University Prof. Steven M. Walt observes: "...two very capable states -- the United States and Israel -- threatening to attack a country that hardly seems worth the effort. The U.S. and Israel together spend more than $700 billion each year on their national security establishments; Iran spends about $10 billion. The U.S. and Israel have the most advanced military hardware in the world; Iran's weapons are mostly outdated and lack spare parts. The U.S. and Israeli militaries are well-educated and very well-trained; not true of Iran.

"The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons and Israel has several hundred, while Iran has a vast arsenal of -- zero. Iran does have a nuclear enrichment program (which is the reason for all the war talk), but the most recent National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that Iran does not presently have an active nuclear weapons program.

"The United States has several dozen military bases in Iran's immediate vicinity; Iran has exactly none in the Western hemisphere. The United States has powerful allies in every corner of the world; Iran's friends include a handful of minor nonstate actors like Hezbollah or minor-league potentates like Bashar al Assad (who's not looking like an asset these days) or Hugo Chávez.

"Moreover, the United States has fought four wars since 1990. It has bombed, invaded or occupied a half dozen countries in that period, leading to the deaths of thousands of people.

As Prof. Walt points out, the United States and Europe are not actually threatened by Iran, even as we terrorize the Iranians with crippling sanctions, sabotage of their infrastructure and assassination of their scientists. All of these acts are, as Rep. Ron Paul has stated, acts of war.

Iran does threaten the status quo in two areas: in Palestine, where the rest of the world, including the Arab world, are sunk in complacency concerning the periodic masacres which the Israelis inflict and the ongoing theft and occupation of Palestinian land; and in countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia which viciously repress Shiite populations. In Bahrain the Shia are a majority tyrannized by a Sunni minority.

Neither situation is any of our business. We should be sending medical and humanitarian aid and goodwill and cultural ambassadors to all sides in the Middle East, and otherwise taking a hands off approach to these never-ending religious wars which are none of our affair, especially in view of our "budget deficit."

Thanks to a Zionist-dominated American media however, and church leaders who teach that contemporary Israelis are genetic descendants of Abraham and the Israeli state is a Biblical (rather than a Talmudic) nation, we have a U.S. Congress which is Israeli-occupied territory.

Not all the fault is with the Traditional Enemies of Truth. For the past thirty years the Iranians and Syrians have done almost nothing to cultivate influence over the propagation and marketing of news and information in the United States. As a result of their neglect, quite naturally their enemies have obtained a monopoly on reporting conflicts to the American people.

In a speech by then President George W. Bush of October 7, 2002, Bush cited alleged Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear programs - as well as concerns about possible Iraqi connections to international terrorist groups. With respect to how close Iraq was to developing a nuclear weapon, Bush said that "we don't know exactly." He went on to state that "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

In the face of requests that the U.S. provide further evidence in support of its position that Iraq was failing to comply with U.N. resolution 1441 and that a resort to military force would be necessary unless Iraq's behavior changed, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. The bulk of Powell's remarks involved his presentation of "additional information about what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iraq's involvement with Al Qaeda associates. In his February 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell charged that Iraq had begun constructing mobile facilities to produce biological weapons.

On September 8, 2002, the New York Times published a front page article by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction which was one of the most serious cases of misreporting in the entire run-up to the war. The piece provided a major boost to the administration’s case for war and proved to be wrong in almost every detail.

Michael Massing writes: "It was the prospect of Saddam Hussein’s getting an atomic bomb that caused the most fear about his regime, and it was this fear that the Bush administration most sought to fan as it pushed the case for war. Yet it had little concrete evidence to show that Iraq was actively seeking a bomb. Enter the New York Times. In that September 8 story, Gordon and Miller, leaning heavily on Bush officials, offered the aluminum tubes as evidence that Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear weapon. The article did not simply raise this as a possibility — it asserted it in bold and unequivocal language. 'US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts' ran the headline. Iraq, the lead declared, 'has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today."

Another New York Times report by government mouthpieces Gordon and Miller, published on Sept. 13 was heavily slanted to the CIA’s position. It iced out critics of the claims that Iraq was trying to gain nuclear weapons and insulted the critics, trivializing and dismising them. Prior to Sept. 13 David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security warned Judith Miller concerning her support for CIA claims. He states: "...an administration official was quoted as saying that 'the best' technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessment. These inaccuracies made their way into the story despite several discussions that I had with Miller on the day before the story appeared — some well into the night. In the end, nobody was quoted questioning the CIA’s position, as I would have expected."

Massing notes "...the Times‘s heavy reliance on official sources and its dismissal of other sources...on the critical issue of whether Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear bomb, the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) had found strong indications that it was not. And how did the Times cover these key statements? With two short, pro forma stories buried inside the A section...The Times ran three front-page stories on Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council speech, one by Michael Gordon...Gordon offered unqualified praise for Powell's assertions about Iraq’s WMD. 'The case Mr. Powell presented today regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction' was 'remorseless,' Gordon wrote. “Even the skeptics,” he added, 'had to concede that Mr. Powell’s presentation had been an important milestone in the debate. Critics may try to challenge the strength of the administration’s case and they will no doubt argue that inspectors be given more time. But it will be difficult for the skeptics to argue that Washington’s case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information.'

"On the nuclear issue, Gordon wrote, Powell 'presented new details to buttress the administration’s case;' in particular, he cited Powell’s claim that the United States 'has intercepted aluminum tubes that had a special coating that would make them useful for making centrifuges to enrich uranium.' Remarkably, Gordon did not see fit to mention the IAEA findings that undermined this claim and that he, Gordon, had twice written about in the previous month. So, at this key juncture in the debate on Iraq, Gordon uncritically transmitted a key US claim, one that the inspectors had effectively discredited. In the light of such reporting, is it any surprise that the IAEA findings had such limited impact?"

Doomed to repeat ruinous scripts from past wars

The American people continue to maintain faith in the credibility of the corporate media and as a result of this willful gullibility, they are on a nightmarish merry-go-round, doomed to repeat ruinous scripts from past wars like the war with Iraq, which was fought on the basis of a barrel of (now forgotten) lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi tries to Al Qaeda.

Any armed resistance against Israeli occupation on the part of national liberation organizations such as Hezbollah, which years ago liberated the El Khiam concentration camp in Lebanon from the control of the Israeli proxies who ran that hellhole, is considered "terrorism." In the eyes of the West the sacred nation of fraudsters who deceitfully call themselves "Israel" cannot be opposed by force of arms. Shiite Islam views the Israelis as Nazis and uses the same tactics against them which the much hallowed partisans of World War Two employed against the Germans.

America's Talmudic mentality will not entertain the analogy however: bombing German Nazis is considered heroic; bombing Israeli Nazis is regarded as the lowest form of demonic evil. Unfortunately for the Zionist occupiers of the U.S. government and media, much of the rest of the world doesn't buy this Talmudic double-standard.

We doubt that the recent spate of bombings on the doorstep of China and Russia, and in India's backyard, will be viewed by the governments of those nations as Iranian in origin.

What a coincidence that the three nations most sympathetic to Iran are suddenly experiencing "Iranian" bombings within or near their territory.